<p>I have to say that the part of the RS story where “he looked in my eyes and I recognized him from my anthropology group” (paraphrased) made me wonder if I was reading fiction.</p>
<p>This whole thing about who do you believe. Do you automatically believe someone who calls themselves a victim? Do you automatically doubt someone who is named as a perpetrator? </p>
<p>Yet really, it is the police who must make that decision, at least at the point of making an arrest and starting an investigation. Many are very upset about Michael Brown’s death, yet do they ignore the injuries to the police officer, the blood in the patrol car, the proof from three autopsies that there were no shots in the back? People pick sides, either the officer is a killer and should be in jail, or the deceased is a thug who threatened the officer’s life.</p>
<p>It can never be both ways. There cannot be guilt and innocence on both sides, lies and truth on both sides.</p>
<p>I’m going to say this again: it’s no good to have the court system be the only recourse for a college rape victim. The court system, rightly, has a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not put people in prison if there is a chance they are innocent.</p>
<p>But colleges ought to have a lower standard of proof for removing from their campus people who commit serious sex crimes. Again, let’s consider this hypothetical example: I am raped by a fellow student. The evidence for his crime is solid and persuasive. There is clear and convincing evidence, and I called the police. The college believes this malefactor is guilty, as he is, in this hypothetical. But, there is not enough evidence for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you saying the college should do nothing, and leave this person they believe to have attacked another student on campus, so that I have to sit next to him in chemistry class and have him snicker at me as I walk to the library? Do you think this is the right system and the right result? </p>
<p>Well, that’s certainly a mouthful. I had to read it three times to follow.</p>
<p>I agree, however. When I read the RS article, I felt uneasy about it. Something about the way it was written made me immediately wonder if it was at least partly fictional. There was no particular detail that seemed unbelievable, but the writing style and the fact that it didn’t seem very well vetted raised my inner alarm.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang – I agree with your post 2281, but with a few caveats. Colleges have an independent responsibility to ensure a safe environment for their students, so I agree there should be some process for removing dangerous students from campus even if a criminal conviction can’t be obtained.</p>
<p>What I think is a bad idea is to not give accused students basic due process – access to legal advice, ability to review & challenge evidence, even examine their accuser, as painful as that might be. If we couple the absence of these basic protections with a low “more probable than not” standard and add in the fact that colleges have no expertise in trying cases, then we are bound to get a complete mess.</p>
<p>The other problem I have is that in most cases the penalty is suspension for a year. It’s rarely expulsion. If a student raped another student, I’d want them in jail and certainly not back on campus in a year. Something seems really wrong here – it’s as if the colleges don’t believe their own findings. </p>
<p>(I guess I could understand this outcome if most of the cases are two more or less equally drunk students having sex with each other. To me, this is the most - though not only - ambiguous case.)</p>
<p>It seems like we have a process where the innocent may be punished and the guilty are insufficiently punished. Of course, as a society we solved this problem centuries ago – it resulted in the Anglo-Saxon judicial system (which isn’t perfect, but is the best solution we have). It seems like we are going to have to painfully reinvent this.</p>
<p>For me it was the broken glass table that raised my inner alarm. The injuries to Jackie and the frat men would have been serious. No one puts hands and knees on broken glass for any reason. Jackie would have had either serious blood loss, bits of glass embedded in her back, scarring. Even tempered glass breaks into sharp gravelly like pieces. Broken glass hurts like heck on bare skin. </p>
<p>It’s curious how in some forums it is not considered acceptable to express a negative opinion regarding promiscuous or certain other behavior of young women that one would never approve of in one’s own daughters, while it is considered acceptable to express an opinion regarding others who express such an opinion regarding that behavior. I know the reason – the implied prohibition or warning has some tenuous, usually extremely tenuous, connection to limiting women’s rights or empowerment, and this is assumed to trump other considerations, including whether someone is simply trying to promote healthy attitudes and behavior in young people. I just think that a consideration of balance should enter the calculations somewhere.</p>
<p>“I’m going to say this again: it’s no good to have the court system be the only recourse for a college rape victim. The court system, rightly, has a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not put people in prison if there is a chance they are innocent.”</p>
<p>Here’s how colleges should handle this:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Clear/convincing burden of proof is appropriate. That’s what colleges used to use until the feds stuck their nose in. Preponderance (as required by the feds) is Bravo Sierra.</p></li>
<li><p>60 day turn around time (as required by the feds) is also Bravo Sierra.</p></li>
<li><p>No expulsions in a faux court proceeding, at least for a first time offender. [From a UVA perspective, do this for cheating/Honor Code too.] Definitely not for an incident that hasn’t been reported to police. This would substantially lessen the due process burden for the school (which is a huge problem). Also probably makes it easier for victims to bring cases and schools to take action. Nullified juries don’t help. Law suits from the accused don’t help. Giving the accused zero incentive to admit wrong-doing and accept punishment doesn’t help. Expulsion also doesn’t seem to be what victims usually want.</p></li>
<li><p>Colleges encourage all alleged rape victims to go to the police. All convicted rapists are expelled. Criminally charged rapists can also be expelled.</p></li>
<li><p>Colleges don’t need a court proceeding (real or faux) to help the victim.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I agree with #2284 that the current process in many colleges ought to be changed. The reports I’ve read suggest slipshod and uninformed proceedings.</p>
<p>I can’t agree that a first-time rapist should be spared expulsion. In the case of rape, not lesser cases of sexual assault but rape, the perpetrator should be gone. And I also think that a prompt resolution of the case is desirable. A 60-day target sounds right to me. What are they waiting for?</p>
<p>“Expulsion also doesn’t seem to be what victims usually want.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure if this is accurate. From what I’ve read, seeing the perpetrator on campus is very painful to most victims/survivors.</p>
<p>But even if it’s true, I’d argue that it doesn’t matter. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the crime is against society, not the victim. That’s why it’s the “People of the State “ vs. the accused. Convicted offenders are locked up to protect society, not just the victim. A perpetrator can’t just pay the victim off and make the charges go away, which I believe is itself a crime. A prosecutor can bring the case even if the victim doesn’t testify, though this rarely happens.</p>
<p>“Expulsion also doesn’t seem to be what victims usually want.”</p>
<p>Simon – so what do you propose? Schools have to full monty “due process up” so that they can fairly expell rapists? Including cases where no report was made to the police?</p>
<p>Since convicted rapists go to jail, that means they are automatically expelled…</p>
<p>"But colleges ought to have a lower standard of proof for removing from their campus people who commit serious sex crimes. "</p>
<p>Unbelievable. So you want them to have reasonable doubt that someone committed a sexual assault, but punish the student anyway?</p>
<p>Colleges are far too worried about lawsuits to remove students without a lot of proof. And proof of plagiarizing is clear as day in many cases. Proof of rape is not. </p>
<p>Colleges need to have clear and consistent rules (NFL anyone?) on what crimes committed by students result in expulsion. Colleges do not have the power nor the ability to prosecute rape. We are talking about a physical crime. Do you think the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts should be allowed to handle child rape cases?</p>
<p>The important thing is to help the victim, but whenever anyone helps a victim, and that person helping has an official capacity, they have to decide whether to force reporting.</p>
<p>Which all comes back to parenting and education. Not reporting a serious personal and physical crime to the police. Versus committing that crime. In both cases, smart enough to be admitted to college. Some kind of disconnect is there, and education of college freshman as well as strict honor codes INCLUDING invasion of privacy and other personal infringements that do not rise to the level of crime necessarily should be put in place. If parents aren’t educating their kids properly, the colleges have a responsibility to because they have so much to lose.</p>
<p>Talking about so much to lose - how many UVA alumni who donate are frat brothers? I bet it is quite a few for the larger donors. Frank Batten for example, whose family is still donating to UVA, was a DKE at UVA. His family’s donations are over $100 million.</p>
<p>“But colleges ought to have a lower standard of proof for removing from their campus people who commit serious sex crimes.”</p>
<p>Fang – please tell me how practically you think colleges should be able to do this? Given that Harvard, Yale, UVA, Michigan, Columbia etc. etc. all do a lousy job of this, I’m interested in what the right way would look like? Easy to say but, imho, impossible to do. </p>
<p>Look since we are talking about rape where multiple posters believe that we should give the benefit of the doubt to the woman at the expense of the male, I don’t think it is fair to ignore the fact that there are plenty of female predators out there as I witnessed that evening.</p>
<p>Of course as a parent I worry about sex and hence hopefully I have taught my daughter to realize that if you are not sexually interested in a guy don’t go to their room or to a secluded location; be aware of unwanted attention in other words don’t wear short shorts, wear a corset, and act like a flirt, and don’t get drunk to the point of passing out know your limitations, don’t drink from an unknown source, don’t make advances to a boy you are not interested in, and advise strongly against the hookup culture as SDI’s are real and have life changing consequences. Its no different than me telling her not to walk down a dark alley in the middle of the night or don’t park in the parking garage late at night without someone walking you to your vehicle. </p>
<p>" I just think that a consideration of balance should enter the calculations somewhere."</p>
<p>And that “balance” should include the consideration that what you or I might consider “healthy attitudes and behavior” is far from being a universally accepted principle. Do my values and parenting advice trump those of a family who might take a more free spirited approach to sexuality? Only in my house as far as I am concerned. </p>
<p>I think these forums are pretty much “open season” when it comes to expressing opinions. But I am not restricted from calling someone out on slinging pejoratives around when I disagree. And yes I find the whole guys are “studs” but girls are “sluts” thing pretty narrow minded.</p>
<p>I’ll plead guilty to this, sort of. I think “slut shaming” is unacceptable, and I called my daughter out on it during the brief period in her life when she engaged in it. (Called her out gently, mind you, because I knew it came from her own insecurity.) And it doesn’t have a “tenuous” connection to limiting women’s rights and empowerment, it has a direct, central connection to it. Most sex discrimination in society has at its base some justification in controlling or regulating women’s sexuality. I care a lot about my daughter being a good person, and productive, and happy, and safe; I don’t get to approve or disapprove of her sex life. I don’t even care about it as long as she isn’t hurting anyone (including herself), and maybe I hope it’s making her happy.</p>
<p>I am on record somewhere upthread in favor of educating kids – all kids, the boys and the girls – on recognizing and avoiding toxic sex. I am all for promoting healthy attitudes and behavior in young people. And one of the things that starts with is disciplining oneself to avoid expressing “negative opinions regarding promiscuous and certain other behaviors of young women.” Girls aren’t responsible for provoking rape.</p>
<p>Yes, regardless of the punishment schools should improve their due process procedures because (1) we’re more likely to find the truth (2) simple fairness to the accused, as society has decided over the centuries (3) to avoid lawsuits from convicted students.</p>
<p>Directionally, I’d rather move towards a higher standard of proof but harsher punishments for students convicted of a truly serious offense instead of the current regime. </p>
<p>I would propose the following - anytime a college finds, using a “clear and convincing” standard and with appropriate due process, that one student has forcibly raped another (by the criminal definition of rape, including incapacitated students), that student should be expelled. This would be subject to appeal to a court. I’d also encourage the victim to pursue criminal remedies. Simply put, these students are threats to the campus and to society, and should be removed from the campus community. It’s hard for me to see how this would be controversial. </p>
<p>This is not meant to preclude punishment for other, non-forcible, sexual assaults. But severely and publically punishing clear cases of rape would hopefully deliver a strong message and change the worst aspects of campus sexual culture.</p>
<p>However, the OCR has mandated that schools use a “more probable than not” standard. From the colleges’ point of view, they have absolutely no choice in this matter. Not sure if they can establish a higher standard for expulsion vs suspension/other punishments.</p>